Of course they didn't find a link.

[James Deuce]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3238374a10,00.html

It's a shame that people still respect the medical "profession" really. They've become Lawyers (ambulance chasing ones at that - crikey that's ironic) with scalpels. Quite easy to dodge this bullet when they don't really know what causes cancer, nor do they have an effective, risk free, reliable treatment.

[thehollowmen]

hmm usually they hawk aetiology off to the statisticians.

And yes they do know some of the things that can cause cancer, that's why they say in there "The cancers were all different types with different triggers."

HPV 16 or 18 is a major cause of Cervical cancer, HHMMTV is thought to be the major cause of breast cancer, EBV causes a nasopharangeal cancer...

I could start listing them but... *Shrugs* I don't have all day.

Now the reason they check the aetiology on diseases is so they can find the cause and remove it. *points to unrecorded 50's chemical dumping* happy? That's part of the way they found that school in Auckland was an old asbestos dumping ground... And people complained the taxpayer was cleaning it up...

[James Deuce]

Not! You just used the standard syntax, "thought to be", in a sentence to describe cancer causes. The causes of the tremendously large range of cancers have been determined by statistical analysis of cancer victims and are therefore suspect. Genetic predispostions are being indicated by the projects growing from the conclusion of the Human Genome Map, but there are still no definite causes for cancer. People still pop up with cancers that bear no relationaship to the usual "causes", and in sometimes in random patterns.

You can quote the standard text book all you like, but some women get cervical cancer without a viral trigger for instance. The best they can do is say that a certain substance, virus, or form of radiation MAY cause a particular type of cancer. Osteosarcomas are rare. A rash of them in one place is rarer, but admittedly the number of cases fall within "statistical error". I'll bet the "statistical errors" feel jolly happy about potentially having limbs removed, undergoing chemo and radiotherapy, and DEFINTITELY developing secondary cancers both from the disease process and the barbaric "treatment".

The talking heads of the medical "profession" need to stop wilfully lying and admit, more than occassionally, that they have no idea MOST of the time.

[vifferman]

The talking heads of the medical "profession" need to stop wilfully lying and admit, more than occassionally, that they have no idea MOST of the time.
We really respected a GP we used to have, as he was very honest about any 'treatment' he prescribed, used appropriate language, and was very easy to talk to. He often admitted things like, "This prescription's a bit hit-and-miss, but it's the best we've got. Take it and if there's no real improvement, there's something else we can try."
Our current GP is pretty good, but not such a good listener. Often I have to put things to him, or ask questions, and then he'll (usually) tell me what he knows.

It's interesting now having an incipient pharmacist in the house, especially because his brain vacuums up all sorts of interesting tidbits. If I want medical information, I'll ask him. Scary some of the stuff that comes out, especially about cancer treatments.

[thehollowmen]

Not! You just used the standard syntax, "thought to be", in a sentence to describe cancer causes. The causes of the tremendously large range of cancers have been determined by statistical analysis of cancer victims and are therefore suspect. Genetic predispostions are being indicated by the projects growing from the conclusion of the Human Genome Map, but there are still no definite causes for cancer. People still pop up with cancers that bear no relationaship to the usual "causes", and in sometimes in random patterns.

You can quote the standard text book all you like, but some women get cervical cancer without a viral trigger for instance. The best they can do is say that a certain substance, virus, or form of radiation MAY cause a particular type of cancer. Osteosarcomas are rare. A rash of them in one place is rarer, but admittedly the number of cases fall within "statistical error". I'll bet the "statistical errors" feel jolly happy about potentially having limbs removed, undergoing chemo and radiotherapy, and DEFINTITELY developing secondary cancers both from the disease process and the barbaric "treatment".

The talking heads of the medical "profession" need to stop wilfully lying and admit, more than occassionally, that they have no idea MOST of the time.

Question: were they all osteosacomas?
And I'm not quoting a text book, I'm quoting what I know from my job...

[James Deuce]

:banana: <-Jim2
:whocares: <-medical profession
:brick: <-obvious appropriate path for those who dare to question

[TonyB]

The talking heads of the medical "profession" need to stop wilfully lying and admit, more than occassionally, that they have no idea MOST of the time.
Too bloody right! I have spent a bit of time as a consumer of the health system. While I have great respect for doctors etc, it soon became apparent to me that medical science still has a very limited understanding of the human body and even more limited tools for assessing what is wrong.
TV series like ER crack me up, patients come in, the doctors ALWAYS know exactly what is wrong with them and are able to act quickly. It just doesn't work like that, not here anyway. OK, if you have something extreemly common like heart disease they have a good idea, but even then there is clearly a fair amount of guessing going on.
A word of advice for anyone who ends up in a hospital: Don't listen to anyone except the head specialist/ surgeon. Trust me on this one, Registrars/ Locumns/ House Surgeons etc are nearly always young, tactless, and fresh out of med school. They usually believe that they know everything and love sharing their opinions with you. I have seen one chap be told that his big toe needed to be amputated. Then a bit later it was his whole foot. Then it was the leg below the knee. Then it was the leg midway up the thigh. Finally at the end of the day the Head Surgeon came in and told him that they hoped to save the toe! Unbelieveable!!! :angry2:

[MSTRS]

Doctors??!! My young fella had 2 years of constant ear infections, treated with antiboitics which never completely cleared up the infection. No investigation of the cause was ever undertaken. At the same time, he had both big toes with infected, ingrown nails, which were finally totally removed & the nailbeds destroyed to prevent regrowth. Eventually my wife got a look at his history chart/report only to see that the infection he was suffering was pseudomonas. Highly resistant to antibiotics. Insisted on a specialist referral. Specialist discovered cause of infection was a cyst growing in the inner ear, which required major surgery to remove. A complaint to the original GP of inappropriate and incomplete treatment fell on deaf ears (no pun intended). The Health and Disability Commissioner was not interested either. My boy has 20% hearing in that ear now, & no nails on his big toes. Thanks GP. Bastard.

[Hitcher]

And another reason the general public doesn't trust doctors is because they're so equivocal. For each one who'll say that blue is green, you'll find another who'll state the opposite. Not helped either by the various quacks and phoneys who occupy increasing amounts of the "medical" space...

[mangell6]

A generalised statement "Doctors are just part of the Pharmacutical Sales team" When was the last time that a doctor told a patient I am not going to give you "xxxxxx" unless you "yyyyyyy" because it will only treat the symptoms not cure the real problem.

[curious george]

Quite easy to dodge this bullet when they don't really know what causes cancer, nor do they have an effective, risk free, reliable treatment.

WTF!?!! Not asking for much are you?....
Effect is always variable, nothing is risk free and reliable treatment is often met with unreliable patients.
Cancers will probably never be cured in that manner, (if at all).

[James Deuce]

WTF!?!! Not asking for much are you?....
Effect is always variable, nothing is risk free and reliable treatment is often met with unreliable patients.
Cancers will probably never be cured in that manner, (if at all).

That's not what I'm saying, and you know it you little toad. Ever thought of a career in PR?

[curious george]

I'll bet the "statistical errors" feel jolly happy about potentially having limbs removed, undergoing chemo and radiotherapy, and DEFINTITELY developing secondary cancers both from the disease process and the barbaric "treatment".

The talking heads of the medical "profession" need to stop wilfully lying and admit, more than occassionally, that they have no idea MOST of the time.

Rock and a hard place.
Do you treat agressivly, chop everything off below the waist, or treat conservativly, and hope nothing spreads?
The side effects can be pretty bad, but it's the best there is.... at the moment.
Don't get me started on Hippie 'alternative Treatment' crap....

I didn't think there was any Doctor who claimed to know it all, (and is still registered)
That's why data is refered to, trends analyzed, and why gut feeling and superstition have been religated with the leeches.
The Duncans have had some concerns, but like the Doc said, it's a coincidence, not a trend... there is no cluster.

What's with all this mistrust/anger towards Doctors tonight for anyway?

[WINJA]

MY DOCTOR LOST A PATIENT DUE TO MISDIAGNOSIS OF MENINGITUS (HOPE I SPELT IT RIGHT) BUT I CONTINUED TO GO TO HIS PRACTICE. HE MADE A MISTAKE I DOUBT WHEATHER HELL MAKE ANOTHER BIG ONE LIKE THAT AGAIN ,NICE GUY GOOD DOCTOR JUST A HUMAN, HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES,
JUST REMEMBER TO ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS AND IF YOU HAVE DOUBTS GET SECOND OPINIONS .I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF DOCTORS IN HOSPITAL THAT ARE SERIOUSLY OVERWORKED

[James Deuce]

MY DOCTOR LOST A PATIENT DUE TO MISDIAGNOSIS OF MENINGITUS (HOPE I SPELT IT RIGHT) BUT I CONTINUED TO GO TO HIS PRACTICE. HE MADE A MISTAKE I DOUBT WHEATHER HELL MAKE ANOTHER BIG ONE LIKE THAT AGAIN ,NICE GUY GOOD DOCTOR JUST A HUMAN, HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES,
JUST REMEMBER TO ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS AND IF YOU HAVE DOUBTS GET SECOND OPINIONS .I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF DOCTORS IN HOSPITAL THAT ARE SERIOUSLY OVERWORKED

You! Pod Person Winja - Out of my thread!!!!!

I want the real one baaaaaack!

My rant isn't about individual doctors. It's about the way information is managed , particularly by the medical "profession". Most Medically oriented press releases fall into the, "Move along folks, nothing to see here" category.

[curious george]

Most Medically oriented press releases fall into the, "Move along folks, nothing to see here" category.

Ah-ha! So perhaps the problem is not with the Doctors, but with the press? :msn-wink:

[James Deuce]

Ah-ha! So perhaps the problem is not with the Doctors, but with the press? :msn-wink:It's a combination of an entrenched society wide culture that Doctors are "special", and a medical PR culture that supports hiding medical mistakes. I think we need a more open culture for both Doctors and Society in general, and the relationship should be more like a mechanic. Less punitive punishment for Doctors when they do make a mistake either by accident or omission might lead to a culture of communication and learning by your mistakes, rather than manipulating information and communication with the patient base.

Of course this all requires that people understand Death and Dying a little better and that people accept that they themselves are going to die. Attempting to save a mortally injured or terminally ill family memebr is all about the people who will be left behind and not at all about the best interests of the person dying. Medical ethics need to be reviewed as well. Just because the body can be sustainded doesn't mean it should be. I'd also like to see Doctors own up to the fact that they euthanase the elderly on a regular basis.

[curious george]

Of course this all requires that people understand Death and Dying a little better and that people accept that they themselves are going to die.

Yup, no problem, next time I talk to a grieving family, I'll say they had it comming anyway....


Medical ethics need to be reviewed as well. I'd also like to see Doctors own up to the fact that they euthanase the elderly on a regular basis.

Medical ethics are constantly reviewed, re-reviewed and things do change depending on the view of society at the time, it can seem a bit slow to change sometimes though..
There is quite a big difference between actively killing somebody, and not providing life support indeffinately..but I think you summed that up with "Attempting to save a mortally injured or terminally ill family memebr is all about the people who will be left behind and not at all about the best interests of the person dying."

[MSTRS]

Attempting to save a mortally injured
Not defending doctors here, but isn't an injury 'mortal' only if the injured person actually dies?

[James Deuce]

Yup, no problem, next time I talk to a grieving family, I'll say they had it comming anyway....


It is NOT the Doctor's role to educate people at that point. You still have the little toad switch in the "On" position.

Western Judeo-Christian belief systems (I'm talking cultural flavour, not religion) has established a denial approach to the concept that one day you will die. Part of the problem is of course that people live so long now, and infant mortality rates are so low, that barring accidents, deaths of family members are decades apart instead of a regular occurrence. People don't develop the mechanisms to accept death as a part of being alive, so they get "surprised" every time it happens.

I think the ethics of life extension through transplant technology or mechanical aids is 40 years behind the technology and the societal attitudes to death.

[Hitcher]

While it's nice at times to pick on spin doctors for being "economical with the truth", there are times when this is defensible -- such as when there are matters of personal privacy at stake, significant commercial impacts associated with incomplete or inaccurate information or, even worse, when lawyers are involved or circling. Although ACC legislation affords a high degree of protection to medical practitioners in New Zealand, it is still possible to sue them. In these circumstances it is understandable that they may wish to protect their arses in public.

[MSTRS]

Although ACC legislation affords a high degree of protection to medical practitioners in New Zealand, it is still possible to sue them. In these circumstances it is understandable that they may wish to protect their arses in public.
Yes, but in practice it is all but impossible to get the case to court and/or win. In this country at least, the medical profession closes ranks and despite all the differing opinions as to treatments etc, they will collectively protect themselves against the uneducated savage(s) that dares to question them.